V.K.Shukla, J. - (1.) Petitioners have approached this court questioning the validity of the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 31.07.2007 issued by respondent no. 4 and further for quashing the order dated 19.07.2007 passed by respondent no. 3.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the instant writ petition is that on 12.02.2007 after trial detenu namely Chunni Lal during his back journey to the Central Jail Naini, Allahabad after attending the court proceeding of Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot, in Case Crime No. 63 of 2003 and Case No. 917 of 2006 Section 60 of Excise Act escaped from custody. Qua the said incident, first information report was lodged being Case Crime No. 10 of 2007, under Sections 222/224 I.P.C., Police Station Manikpur district Chitrakoot. For letting under trial detenu escape from his custody, petitioners were placed under suspension on 13.02.2007. Qua the aforementioned incident, Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad asked the Circle Officer, Lines Allahabad to make preliminary inquiry and submit report. Report was submitted in on 03.06.2007 mentioning therein that there is dereliction of duties on the part of the petitioners in escape of detenu Chunni Lal from custody qua this act of the petitioners criminal case has been registered where in charge sheet has been filed and recommendation has been made for taking action against the petitioners under the provisions as contained in Rule 14(1) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 for dereliction of duties. Petitioners have contended that 19.07.2007 respondent no. 3 has appointed Enquiry Officer Circle Officer Nagar 4th Allahabad. Petitioners has further submitted that thereafter on 31.07.2007 charge sheet has been served upon them. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Sri Malik Sayeed Uddin, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners contended with vehemence that in the present case, criminal case and departmental proceeding are based on same set of fact and same evidence, as such continuance of departmental inquiry, is not at all justifiable and consequentially directive be issued for withholding departmental proceeding till criminal trial is not over. For this preposition he has also placed reliance on Regulation 492 and 493 of U.P. Police Regulations as well as judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Coal Mines Ltd., 1999 (3) S.C.C. 679 and 2004 (7) S.C.C. 27, State Bank of India v. R.B. Sharma .;